BREAKING: More Strzok Texts Revealed

Breaking news! New text messages that were declassified show that the FBI and Peter Strzok were investigating President Trump before Crossfire Hurricane was even opened. We'll talk about that and more today on Jay Sekulow Live. Live from Washington D.C., Jay Sekulow Live. Phone lines are open for your questions right now. Call 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. The now, I mean, just bogus Crossfire Hurricane investigation into President Trump and Russia, which began on July 31st, 2016, has been completely debunked. But that's when we were told by the FBI and when they testified under oath that it began, which was July 31st, 2016, during the Presidential election and the lead up to the Presidential election. But now new text messages have been released and declassified and the Senate has released these through Chairman Ron Johnson of the Senate Homeland Security Committee and Chuck Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. They got these declassified messages that show that Peter Strzok was talking to Lisa Page three days before this and I'll read it directly. There's three things I want to talk to you about, Lisa. One, that is blacked out. Two, are open counterintelligence investigations relating to Trump's Russia connections?

And three, whether two things I bought frames for are okay to hank. But number two is on July 28th, and he didn't say we just opened. He said, are open counterintelligence investigations relating to Trump's Russia connections? But these are the same folks who testified that they were not investigating Trump in Russia until Crossfire Hurricane was officially opened on July 31st. So it's not just that these are three days apart, Dad. It's that in this text message, he's referring to an ongoing, we don't know how far back it goes, but an ongoing investigation of President Trump in July of 2016.

Notice what it doesn't limit it to? The Trump campaign. So the email itself says, are open CI, which is criminal counterintelligence investigation relating to Trump's Russian connections. So again, the FBI caught again with misstatements about when this investigation started, how it started. And the fact of the matter is, and I think we have to be clear on this, they set this up, they put this in motion, they being the Federal Bureau of Investigation. And the end result of that was, in my view, a complete fabrication to the American people, a three-year investigation that garnered nothing, and it was a hoax from the beginning.

And they all knew it. It was to take out President Trump. Now, they weren't successful in doing it during the election, during that 2016 campaign. But you ask yourself, this is the Federal Bureau of Investigation. They were up to no good very early on.

Well, that's right. And they were doing this, again, you could say, well, it didn't affect President Trump in 2016 because it was a counter intel, it's not yet known. But did it affect President Trump in 2020? Well, I mean, think about what he had to go through as President once he won. He had the entire FBI going after him. The special counsel was appointed to go after him, Mueller, really try to just sully his name. He had people like Swalwell and others calling him a Russian agent on television, people like Adam Schiff. Then there was an impeachment because Russia got nowhere, but they still wanted to take him out. So they impeached him over a phone call that 35 other people listened to.

It was a phone call with the Ukrainian President that was not private one-on-one. And again, it was failed impeachment, but it took up the first three years of President Trump's presidency. He was fighting a special counsel based off a bogus Russia investigation that we now know started even before they told us it started. And it's because the FBI and Strzok were just bent on taking out Trump. And then an impeachment, a Mueller, then impeachment, then he gets out of that, and then it's COVID, basically. Then three Supreme Court cases we had to deal with. COVID hit while we were doing the impeachment trial in the US Senate. So basically the entire four years of the Trump presidency were dominated by this, and he was still able to accomplish so much. But again, imagine what it would have been like without these bad actors.

And imagine what 2020 could have been like without these bad actors and these things hanging over the President. We'll talk about it when we come back on Jay Sekio Live. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith, uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy, and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress, the ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support.

For that, we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support.

Take part in our Matching Challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life. Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift.

By the way, that was, can I say something? That's an album, Christmas album, done by the Jay Sekulubam called Hope for Jerusalem. And it's available, I think, now anywhere you get your music.

So you should look for that. That's just a sample. It's kind of Christmas classics. We are doing a concert at the end of the month. In fact, when we're done with radio today, I'm going to shoot remotely my drum section on one song and guitar section on another. Two really good ones too.

The tune Reminiscing by the Little River Band and then A Monkey's Tomb, actually. I'm Not Your Stepping Stone, which I thought would be kind of appropriate for this time of our history. Anyways, that's with that. All right, back to the calls, back to the topic. Yeah, I mean, again, what we are focusing on today, and I didn't know that we would be talking Peter Strzok again this late into December of 2020, but now more text messages have been declassified. And what they show, and I just want to underscore the significance, because I don't want you to get caught up with the short time period dates, but the words that he used, was that Peter Strzok was texting Lisa Page on July 28, 2016, so before the election in 2016. There's three things he wants to talk to her about.

One is blacked out. The second one, which is the important one, is are open counterintelligence investigations relating to Trump's Russia connections. Not the Trump campaigns, not specific, but very general, any kind of Trump Russia connections. Now, why is this such a smoking gun?

Why is it so important that we're talking about it today right away on radio? Well, these are people who testified that they weren't even beginning to investigate anything involving President Trump in Russia until July 31st. But in this text message sent on July 28th, he wants an update on the open investigation relating to Trump's Russia connections. So they were doing the Trump Russia bogus investigation long before they ever told Congress they officially did so. So I mean, right there alone, they could be subject to problems because they may have been under oath in those testimonies. But the fact is, we don't know yet how far back it goes, but certainly it's more than three days.

I mean, it's probably at least a month or longer before they ever opened an actual official investigation that would be tracked with a name like Crossfire Hurricane, and they would tell people. You know, some of these other aspects of these emails are also interesting. In another one that comes to Shrock, he says, I haven't seen it yet talking about something and dealing with Russia than a blackout. And then you got one talked with blank, following these emails this morning.

I think we're fine. I want to keep this low key and protect the career diplomat who met with Papadopoulos. This was the setup of George Papadopoulos.

You realized what was going on here. So the career diplomat that met with Papadopoulos, originally we were told it was just some kind of undercover assistance they got from a British professor, and now we're finding out that they had career diplomats involved. He also said, I asked DCM to limit the dissemination at state as much as possible, hopefully means 60 people instead of 120. I'll tell you what the problem with all this is in my view, Thanh, is that, and you know, I know John Durham's investing in it. We'll see what happens with the new administration.

I don't know what Joe Biden will do with Durham. Now they've appointed him as a special counsel on the pressure and the House being so close and the Senate, if it ends up being controlled by Republicans, I don't think it'd be so easy to dismiss. And what's your sense?

Well, it shouldn't be easy to dismiss. There's an awful lot of smoke there. I would say there's fire there at this point, Jay. I mean, look, we already knew that the FBI had demonstrated an animus to President Trump. I think this is clear evidence they were trying to invoke and put in motion a scheme to undermine him from not just the beginning, but from further back than we knew even to this point. Look, Peter Strzok, this is a guy, Jay, that people didn't have to remember. I know we've talked a lot about him, but he was not only the guy that signed the memo opening Crossfire Hurricane, he was also the guy that overruled the Washington Field Office closing Crossfire Razor, which was a subset of that. Here's the question that I- General Flynn. So everybody remembers. Correct.

Yeah. But look, as far as your question about Congress, this is what I think Ron Johnson and Chuck Grassley are asking now. Jay, where's Christopher Wray in all of this? I mean, look, we now know there was an investigation predating the one that they've been briefed on. They have every right to know how far back that reached and who all it involved.

Jay, who knows? There might be a whole lot of other people inside the campaign scope that this involved that we're yet aware of. You're talking about committing perjury. Let's just play Trey Gowdy, former Congressman, when he was a Congressman at the hearing. This was held on July 12th, 2018, and it involves Peter Strzok. Prior to July 31st, 2016, how many witness interviews did you conduct as part of the Russia-Trump campaign alleged collusion investigation? None. So none before July 31st.

None before July 31st, none. We've now got, so that's perjury. Material fact too, by the way, when the investigation actually started. So you see what's happened here.

Now, Durham, if he gets to finish the tasks, could bring this all to a, bring it to a head. But Harry, I look at this and if I look at obstruction, which is, you know, 18 USC, 1,001, or here, not obstruction, false statements, and maybe obstruction on this because they had, Congress was investigating. How do you, I mean, this is, how does he get around this? And we got the emails now. Let's say it's not his email.

I'm not sure he can, and I'm certain that he shouldn't. Jay, I think it's important to keep in mind that the tentacles of the Trump investigation began in 2015, arguably as a coverup of Hillary Clinton's complicity in using a private email server account. And this was reported in 2015 by the New York Times. And so some of the players who are now, who were implicated, if you will, by the FBI, wrongly implicated, they were investigated by the FBI beginning in 2015. So it's very, very possible that this investigation of President Trump and the so-called Russia collusion narrative commenced in 2015. And so now we have newly declassified text messages from Peter Strzok indicating that the FBI began its investigation of President Donald Trump before the Crossfire hurricane investigation was open. So that's just one bit of information suggesting that the FBI, not only was engaged in its own form of collusion, but then lied, and this is my claim, to cover it up. Well, I mean, listen to Trey Gowdy. This is when he is a chairman of the committee in the House, and he's talking about this specifically.

Let's play Byte 23 first, and then we'll get to Byte 29. The FBI has represented to Congress that nothing from an investigative standpoint with respect to Russian collusion and the Trump campaign began before July 31st, 2016. I mean, there you go. You heard Strzok say it. You heard Gowdy confirm it again, that during these hearings, that nothing, I mean, that they weren't doing anything until July 31st.

We now know they were lying. We know Peter Strzok was lying to Congress because we had the text message, and then it shows that this investigation was already open, and as Harry said, it could have been opened as far back as 2015. We also, let me remind people that the Russian intel that was picked up, that it was Hillary Clinton funneling this whole program, and that Russians were worried that they were going to get blamed for these hacks, that they were going to get blamed for the server of Hillary Clinton, and that Hillary Clinton was going to put forward all this Trump-Russia collusion, so they were going to get blamed for that, and our intel picked up the Russian intel communications about that.

Look, this is a staggering abuse of power, Jordan. No two ways about it, and I would say it's a staggering abuse of power that continues to be perpetuated today because, look, Peter Strzok hasn't come forward and given this information. He was caught. I mean, this is information that was just put out today that Peter Strzok was not forthcoming about, and Jordan, I think it also underscores. We've talked about this previously, but it underscores the opposition to Peter Strzok leading this investigation that existed at the FBI at the time. I mean, major, major players, including counterintelligence director Bill Priestap, did not want Peter Strzok leading that investigation because he said, look, Peter Strzok has gone around the chain of command and collaborated with Andy McCabe outside of the chain of command in the past. He's not the right guy to do this, but Jordan, why was Peter Strzok, why was Andy McCabe okay with putting Peter Strzok in charge, Jordan? Because Andy McCabe was in on it too.

It was his office in which the insurance plan was talked about it. So that was exactly the guy he wanted to lead it because they had already chosen where they wanted to end up, and now they were just trying to make the facts fit it. I don't think there's any other way to put it, Jordan.

No, I mean, this is, again, I think it's something that has to continue. I mean, Durham is expanding his team. He's been made into a special counsel to make it harder to remove him by the Biden team. And I think also with the shrink, I know we're 50 seconds here, but there are shrinking majorities in the House for Democrats as we speak, which makes it tougher and tougher for them to get rid of John Durham. Well, think about this, Jordan, 222 Democrats were elected, but already three have been tagged by the Biden administration. That takes them down to 219. You need 218 to win the speakership gavel.

Think about that, Jordan. I mean, so they're down to just a one or two person majority. And again, folks, the Senate is up for grabs. Let's not forget the importance.

Georgia, January 5th, makes it a lot harder to get rid of Durham's, makes it a lot when he's expanding his team. So we'll take your call as we come back. Remember, we've got a matching challenge right now at the ACLJ for the month of December, whatever you're able to donate online at ACLJ.org is doubled because we have a group of donors who say we'll match all the donations that come in in December, donate online ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected, is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life. Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad, whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith, uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy, and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress, the ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support.

For that, we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support. Take part in our matching challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. Welcome back to Jay Sekio Live. This is Jordan Sekio. We are going to take your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110. We have one coming in now. Alejo calling from Illinois online to Alejo. Welcome to Jay Sekio Live. You're on the air.

I am on the air also. My question is that if the Trump administration has already sold evidence against Peter Strzok and company, or is it an indictment? Well, that's what John Durham's doing. So John Durham is the Justice Department official that was appointed to look at all of these cases, the origins of Crossfire Hurricane, which by the way, now Strzok knowingly misrepresented the date upon which this investigation...

Very clearly. When you answer Congress under oath with words like no, and now we have messages that show you were lying, I mean, right away those are moves you can take. Now the grand jury has to approve that and you've got to go through that process.

But I still think Peter Strzok could be in serious trouble. So again, Durham has increased his team and the Democrat majority in the House is shrinking down to one vote. It looks like right now, one vote majority, 218, maybe 219.

And then the US Senate, it's up for grabs, remember. So that really will have a big part of whether Durham is able to continue to do his work as he expands his team. But Dad, I know we've got a major pro-life victory and we've written about it at ACLJ.org. We haven't had time to talk about it yet on air. It's an awesome story about the ACLJ work and how it has led to even bigger legal action being taken because of course we handle the civil side of cases and now the Department of Justice has taken one of our civil cases on life and the conscience clause and launched an investigation. Yeah, their own investigation. And actually filed a lawsuit. Yeah, and they filed a civil action to stop... And let me read you the first sentence of it. The United States brings a civil action to stop defendant in the University of Vermont Medical Center from punishing healthcare personnel who follow their conscience and refuse to perform abortions.

Now let me read that to you again. This is filed by the United States Department of Justice. It's the United States of America versus the University of Vermont Medical Center. And it says, the United States brings this civil action to stop defendant, University of Vermont Medical Center from punishing healthcare personnel who follow their conscience and refuse to perform abortions. The lawyer handling the case for us at the ACLJ is our Senior Counsel, Frank Manion. Frank brought the initial challenges forward. And Frank, let's get some history here so people know how this case developed and now the Department of Justice involved.

Sure, Jay. Yeah, this is a big deal. This is the first time ever since the enactment of something called the Church Amendments back in 1973, right after Roe v. Wade, that we've gotten the government to file a lawsuit alleging a violation of the Church Amendment. The Church Amendment is one of many conscience protections out there. If you look at it on paper, it's really the best. It's the most direct. It covers the most procedures. But we've never been able to get it enforced.

It didn't matter whether it was a Republican administration or a Democratic administration. We now have a lawsuit filed for the first time ever. We represent a nurse who worked in the operating room, a surgical nurse at the University of Vermont. She was on a list of religious objectors, in other words, people who said, I'm not going to participate in any abortions of any kind because of my religious beliefs. Knowing full well that she was on that list, she was deceived by her employer on one day in 2017, sent into a procedure that she was told was a non-controversial DNC following a miscarriage. Once she got in the room and scrubbed in, which means she really can't get out at that point, she found out that it was an elective abortion of a six-month gestational age baby. She was horrified. She called out to her supervisor, who could have just walked in the room and taken her place, and said, you know I'm on the objector list.

I can't do this. She said, too bad, you have to do it. The doctor in the room also knew she was an objector and greeted her with the words, please don't hate me for this. So talk about an outrageous horror story. She came to us. We investigated it. We interviewed witnesses in addition to our client, and we referred this case. We filed a formal complaint with the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division of the Office of Civil Rights of HHS, a new agency or a new sub-agency within HHS that was created by the Trump administration. They investigated it. They spent a week in Vermont interviewing 15 or so other health care people, attempted to reach a settlement with the University of Vermont. Apparently, the university refused. And so just two days ago, they filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Vermont to finally, finally put some teeth in the church amendment after all these years. And we couldn't be prouder that it's because of the ACLJ that we were able to do this. I mean, this is a monumental decision or a move by the Department of Justice and HHS.

But I want to be clear. The Constitution should clearly protect Harry. That is the conscience rights of American citizens who oppose abortions and don't want to actually participate in the procedure, especially rights of a pro-life nurse who was effectively coerced into participating in an elective abortion. What we have arguably is a collusive conspiracy by the university to violate the First Amendment rights of this pro-life nurse. And it was outrageous because it was premeditated and it was intentional, at least in my view. And one of the things that we perhaps should think about is seeking to criminalize the behavior engaged in by the medical personnel at the University of Vermont because they knew that this pro-life nurse did have, A, the right to object, but they engaged in action to ensure that she violated her conscience rights. All right.

So let me ask you this, Frank. We've got two minutes left here. What is the likely outcome? Well, first of all, you've got to worry that the new administration is not going to stop it if there is in fact a new administration, which looks likely. What happens to this case?

Well, yeah, we don't know what the... Assuming there is a new administration in January, whether they're going to pursue the case. If they decide to just let this drop, we've got to raise hell, Jay, because their own investigation uncovered more than we even knew about.

If you look at paragraph 50 of the complaint that the Department of Justice filed, they found another 10 nurses who went through similar ordeals as our nurse. So they can't just come in early next year and say, you know what, never mind. I mean, something has to be done. And I think we have to make enough noise to sort of embarrass them into doing it.

Let's not forget. For some reason, they don't. Do we have any recourse that we could take these nurses and file our own federal suit?

Well, we're looking into that right now, Jay. I mean, there are timing issues. And frankly, the nurses prefer to do it this way because they were able to do it anonymously. And they've got careers to protect.

I understand them, families to feed. So we understand all that. So this should have been, as right now... How are we going to keep the pressure up? Yeah, absolutely. All right. Frank, thanks for the update. And, Dan, I'm going to go quickly to you on this, which means we got to keep... Listen, the Senate race is all that more important because at least you can keep some congressional heat on the Department of Justice to rectify this wrong. Look, Jay, this was federal law for almost 50 years, and no administration would enforce it to this one.

We followed it all the way from the regulatory end to the litigation end. Jay, I agree with Frank. If this drops, it won't be the end of it for the ACLJ. All right, folks, we come back, second half hour coming up.

We'll continue to take your phone calls, 1-800-684-3110. Continue to get into the Peter Strzok matter, which cannot be ignored, folks, because he told Congress, absolutely not. He's actually doubled down in a tweet in a response to President Trump, so we'll get to that. He's still denying it, even though we have the tweets, even though we have his text messages.

I mean, it's unbelievable. Support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. Donate today.

At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20. A $50 gift becomes $100. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family.

Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. Live from Washington, D.C., Jay Sekulow Live. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. So let me reset the stage for you. Peter Strzok testified to Congress, back to the House. We have the sound.

You want to play it again for everybody so everybody can hear it. He testified that nothing was done about Trump and Russia until they opened Crossfire Hurricane on July 31st. He testified to Trey Gowdy when Trey Gowdy was the chair. Take a listen. Prior to July 31st, 2016, how many witness interviews did you conduct as part of the Russia-Trump campaign alleged collusion investigation?

None. So none before July 31st. Then it went on because Trey Gowdy said this statement and Peter Strzok didn't correct it.

Take a listen. The FBI has represented to Congress that nothing from an investigative standpoint with respect to Russian collusion and the Trump campaign began before July 31st, 2016. And just yesterday, new text messages declassified from Peter Strzok to Lisa Page on July 28th of 2016. So three days before July 31st. But what's key is that he says, so three things I want to talk to you about, and number two is the important one, are open counterintelligence investigations relating to Trump's Russian connections. Not we're about to open in a few days, but they were already open. Now here's the thing, President Trump tweeted about this.

I would have too if I was President Trump. And Peter Strzok replied to the President just about a couple hours ago and said, this is untrue. The investigation opened July 31st. Now either, there's only one of these can be true. And it's the text message because- From Peter Strzok. Yeah, from Peter Strzok, time stamped, date stamped. We know the time. On the 28th of 2016 at 1349.

Which is 1 49 in the afternoon. So three things I want to talk to you about are open, so it's already open. Let's read his words. It's ongoing. Open, CI investigation, counterintelligence investigation relating to Trump's Russian connections. So an open counterintelligence investigation relating to Trump's Russian connections. That is dated July 28th and it was talking past tense, are open. Then he says no, untrue. The investigation opened July 31st. So to me, he makes his false statement issue, Harry, even clearer.

Absolutely. So one of the great things about Peter Strzok is his capacious ability to impeach himself with his own testimony. So basically, a first year law student could tear apart Peter Strzok's testimony. You cannot start an investigation on July the 31st and that's the commencement of it. And then we have evidence from his own mouth, essentially, that he was engaged in an investigation on or before July the 28th. So he is fibbing on either one side or the other. But I think his history suggests that he is an untrustworthy individual who had a preordained plan, a preordained insurance policy aimed first at defeating Donald Trump and secondly at impairing his presidency.

And I think the evidence is clear as day. I mean, again, this is just the fact that Peter Strzok then gets involved in this discussion, replies to the President saying that this is untrue when we have a time stamp text message. I mean, only in Washington would someone be so bold.

One, he could have just kept his mouth shut and at least develop. But instead, no, no, he's got to say, you're telling lies. Again, President Trump, even though President Trump's basing it off of a time stamp, text message sent from Peter Strzok to Lisa Page about an ongoing counterintelligence investigation before Crossfire Hurricane.

Jordan, only in Washington. And I would tell you, I think even most people here would know that it's probably time to stop talking. I'll tell you this. I can't imagine Peter Strzok's attorney advising him to do anything but stop talking. But you know what? He says it's untrue. Yeah, this is a pompous guy who needs to be taken down ultimately.

And I think that's probably why part of the reason why Durham is expanding his team. And he got that special counsel status. We'll be back. Remember, our matching challenge goes through the end of December, double the impact of your donation at ACLJ.org. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad, whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith, uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy, and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress, the ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support.

For that, we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support.

Take part in our matching challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement.

Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life. Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. Welcome back to Jay Sekula Live.

This is Jordan Sekula. We are taking your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110. I also encourage your Facebook audience to continue to share this with your friends and family. Make sure you're signed up to get notifications on Facebook and on YouTube.

Make sure if you are watching on YouTube, we've been doing this for about a month, and it's a totally different audience there, but it's live. And make sure you're subscribed. You click that subscribe button.

It's very easy. And then next to the subscribe button, there's a bell. You click on the bell.

This makes sense. If you're watching it on YouTube, you see it right there. You click on the bell, you'll get notifications. So when we go live, you'll get the notification that the radio shows live. If there's ever breaking news that we have to come back to and we go later in the day and we come back live again, you'll get those notifications as well through YouTube. So we encourage you to hit the subscribe button and make sure to click that bell as well. It's a growing new audience on YouTube. We've got Facebook, Periscope, Rumble later in the day.

It's not live yet, but later in the day on Rumble. Of course, we put it out on Periscope and on Parler as well. And any kind of the social media.

It's still up at ACLJ.org as well for those of you who like just to watch it, don't want to see the chats and the comments going in. And of course, the majority of our audience that we thank that is listening on local radio stations or Sirius XM, of course, we think about you every single day. That's our biggest audience that we're talking to.

We always try to make sure anything we're showing on camera, we're able to explain to you. And what we're talking about today, and now it's got even more to it as Peter Strzok is telling the President of the United States, his text message is untrue. And like we've said, only one of these can be true. Either there was no investigation about President Trump or the Trump campaign or Trump in general and Russia until Crossfire Hurricane opened July 31st, which is what Peter Strzok testified to, or his text message is right. I would say it's probably his text message, which is timestamped and references a open counterintelligence investigation relating to Trump's Russia connections. I don't even know that, he can't even really play with the words with this one. Trump Russia, I mean, you can't say that's different than- That's why I keep reading the text. You got to read the text message itself. So he writes this to Lisa Page, who is a lawyer at, both of them, by the way, ended up working for Bob Mueller. What a disappointment that guy was. I have to just be clear.

Was he like absent, I guess, for all of this? So three things, yeah, three things I want to talk to you about. One, our open, so this is dated the 28th of July, that's three days before September 31st. So it's already open.

Our open what? Our open CI investigation. What is CI investigation? Counterintelligence investigation. Relating to, so what does the investigation cover?

Trump's Russian connections. So fan, when he went up there and testified across the street from your office right now, he made a false statement. Or either this email is a false statement. I'm pretty sure he lied at that instance.

I'm with Jordan on this one. He's talking to other FBI agents here about open investigations. Why would he have been lying at that point?

I think there would have been job ramifications there. I also, you know, look, it could be redacted because of classified information, but I actually want to know what he's talking about in point number one, too. I mean, maybe that's information about an investigation we know about.

I don't really care to know what frames he bought to hang, although who knows? Maybe he was going to frame the documents he signed opening these investigations. Look, Jay, he's not telling the, possibly. Here's the bottom line. He's not telling the truth in at least one of these instances. And I'd bet my bottom dollar that he's not telling the truth when he tells the President it's untrue.

Here's the thing. Peter Strzok told people to keep the investigations open. When agents of the FBI who were actually investigating the, and this was on the Crossfire Razor, which was the investigation of Mike Flynn, Harry told them, close it. There's nothing there. We've interviewed the guy. Nothing happened.

Absolutely. So Peter Strzok, I think is a nefarious character. And if we go back to the newly declassified texts for a moment, it indicates that the FBI again commenced an investigation of then candidate Donald Trump and his campaign long before I believe the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was open. That then led to an official investigation at which then led to the Mueller investigation. And basically if you look at the Mueller investigation, the FBI investigation, the quote unquote pre-investigation, basically it's all part and parcel of a false spurious charge with respect to the Russian collusion narrative. And then if you look at Bob Mueller's investigation, it's clear beyond doubt that the Mueller investigation proved that there was no basis, a probative basis for investigating President Trump, but there indeed was a probative basis for investigating Hillary Clinton. Second, the Mueller investigation, for instance, proved that Bob Mueller needs to head very swiftly to a rest home in Florida. And third, it proves something far more important that the FBI leadership has been corrupt. And I'm talking about the top individuals for years, if not for decades. And that is the quintessential problem. Yeah.

I want to go to Susan on Facebook. She wrote in, my question is, once Joe Biden's in office, all these investigations disappear due to the new powers that will be. Joe Biden does get into office.

Now here's the problem. He's got a shrinking congressional majority in the house down to a one vote majority. I mean, it takes 218. They might have 219, the Democrats, because he's been pulling from the house. What is the actual breakdown between Republicans and Democrats once Biden's sworn in?

I know there's a couple of races that are like, Republicans are leading by like six votes or 20 votes. So those will have to be settled. But where would we be at? I mean, they would barely beat to 218, right?

Right. So if those two races settle out as they are now, Jordan, and the Republicans win both of them, it would be 222 Democrats elected, 213 Republicans. But Jordan, three of those Democrats would be leaving for the Biden administration, assuming things proceed as they are now.

So that would drop it to 219 to 213. But Jordan, I mean, you know this very well, not every vote just requires a majority of the people who are there voting. Some of them require a literal majority of the house, including the speakership vote. So no matter how many people leave and how many vacancies there are, Speaker Pelosi has to get to 218 to be Speaker of the House. And if AOC and maybe one other person says, I'm not voting for her, look, maybe they can't pick their own speaker, but they could certainly deny Nancy Pelosi from being Speaker.

So it would get very interesting, very fast. Not to mention, Jordan, there's a lot of reasons members have to leave the house. Yeah. And there's also, it also means, you know, getting rid of John Durham, which the President would have the authority to do, they work for the Department of Justice, even the special counsel, would be political, very politically, very risky with a divided government and divided country to then just, you know, terminate John Durham, who served both administrations, I think would be politically very, very risky, Jordan. I don't know if they can do it. I don't think they can. He has the power to, it's whether he would exercise that power.

Right. I think that what he's got his issue with is that, specifically his issue is that he's got the special counsel designation. And if the Republicans are able to win those two seats in Georgia, and the house is that narrow, I mean, basically you are looking at, if you're Joe Biden and you're looking at taking the oath of January 20th, you're looking at a couple of years, it's very likely that you're not going to have the House, and you might not have the Senate either, especially if Georgia Republicans and Georgia conservatives and Georgians who just don't like the idea of a single party controlling every branch, if you don't like the idea of the Democrats in control that sit at the House and the White House voting, then, you know, again, I think that this puts Joe Biden in kind of that Barack Obama situation, where two years in, you can't get much done.

So, and if you're on this limit of numbers, you might not even be able to get much done the first two years. They're already talking about he's going to have trouble with judicial nominees because so many were filled by President Trump. And the idea that, again, if Mitch McConnell's there, the most extreme liberals aren't getting through the Republican Senate. If it's a Republican Senate. Let's go to Paige in Tennessee on Line 5.

Hey, Paige. Hey, I was just wondering, who is responsible for the releasing of the stock, the stock emails? And I mean, why do they just drip, drip it out? So it's process. Yeah. I mean, there's a process. This came through, these were released by senators Ron Johnson, who chairs the Homeland Security Committee and Chuck Grassley, who chairs the Senate Finance Committee. These were declassified, uh, probably by the, uh, the DNI had to declassify them.

So John Ratcliffe. So again, some of it has been a drip, drip, drip. Some of it we've seen day illusions, but they have to go through a ton. I mean, if you see this page, I mean, this is just like a few days of just his text messages with Lisa Page. And then you've got to read it line by line. What's not redacted. Not much is here to figure this stuff out, but I understand the frustration because this goes back to 2016.

I just want to recall that this has been the FBI has not been very forthcoming, even under Chris Ray, which is why Christopher Ray is being kept by Joe Biden. We have a virtual tie between our Facebook live audience and our, uh, YouTube audience. So let's see who pulls it out. So I want to encourage the Facebook audience and the YouTube audience to share the feed with your friends, hit subscribe and the bell.

If you're on YouTube and of course, follow and like on Facebook. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected. Is there any hope for that culture to survive? And that's exactly what you are saying. When you stand with the American center for law and justice to defend the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication, offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn. It's called mission life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe V Wade 40 years later, play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life. Request your free copy of mission life today, online at ACLJ.org slash gift at the American center for law and justice. We're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad, whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith, uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress, the ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support for that.

We are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support. Take part in our matching challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family.

Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. We are literally neck and neck on YouTube and Facebook. I mean, like almost down to like the state of Georgia election. I mean, it's that close. So we don't have machines haywiring here. So what we encourage you to do, both of you on Facebook and YouTube, share it with your friends right now and hit those subscribe buttons to stay engaged on all this as we talk about the Peter Strzok thing.

And by the way, Rumble, same thing. Of course, you're watching us later in the day there, ACLJ.org, all of our social media platforms. And of course the vast audience is the radio audience.

We're on more radio broadcasts than all these other mediums complying, but we're glad we can use all of them. Yeah, exactly. This is a great question, Kevin Brandon on YouTube. And I want to let Brandon know, I want to also let the whole audience know. We're going to do a show next week where we've blocked out his time for a full hour with Rick Grenell. He's still a special advisor for the ACLJ on foreign policy and national security on Intel and the threats facing America in 2021. So we're going to be doing that for you. And I think this will answer a lot of your questions, Brandon, but he asked specifically, how does this scandal shape the future of US intelligence against American citizens? And I think it's, does it scare the FBI off from doing this?

And I'm not sure yet. We've gotten to that point where I can say, yes, I think that the IRS, we got them to stop, but we had to litigate. So I think it takes more than just a 38 year old lawyer being indicted by John Durham. It would take more than that to scare off the bureaucracy. So no, I don't think US Intel has been totally cleaned up. I think the Trump team has done as best they can by, you know, they put in people like Rick Grenell who declassified a lot of information about the unmasking. Remember they put in people like John Radcliffe, who have gotten this information out. Uh, but if people aren't behind bars or, or, you know, uh, I don't think losing their jobs and then writing a book for a million dollars is not going to scare them away from doing it. Think about that. What's going to scare them away from doing it is having to spend all that million dollars in legal fees and, and then, uh, paying restitution, but when they're behind bars, but, but that takes high profile people and taking them down through the grand jury process during COVID now, potential shift in administrations. But I mean, I think, I think that's, if less than happens, Dan, I think this could happen right away again.

Oh yeah. I look, I mean, of course they're, if you look at who Joe Biden's putting in place, it's the same crowd. So, I mean, it's, it's the same group all over again. They think Peter Strzok's great. That not only think he's great, they think he did a service to the United States. They think Jim Comey, they don't like because they view him as costing Hillary Clinton the election, but Peter Strzok is not viewed by the, the elites up in Washington fan as an enemy of the constitution.

Oh, probably the opposite, Jay. I mean, look, he's out here still lying to us today, uh, through a text message out in the open, uh, to the President of the United States. And yet you don't hear a whole lot, uh, from the Biden administration, certainly, or the left in Washington, DC about that egregious abuse of power.

Look, here's what I would say. Um, we give an awesome power to these individuals, people like Jim Comey, Peter Strzok, Andy McCabe, uh, I'm with Jordan when they, when it is abused in this way, unless there is a pretty serious ramification for that abuse, there's no disincentive for future officials down the road to do it again. And by the way, Jay, in some of these cases, it's not, it wouldn't be future officials. It's the same officials.

I mean, uh, Joe Biden is bringing back some of the very same officials that were involved in this in the past. So it is something we have to be concerned about moving forward. Yeah. I think, you know, Harry, I was thinking about this and I look at the kind of the reaction that, um, you get with these kinds of things. And I mean, I think people that are conservatives and respect the constitution understand that this guy really harmed the constitution and harm the constitutional process and is still lying right now.

Absolutely. So one of the things that this, um, incident, uh, suggest is the global elites who look down on individuals who live in what might be called flyover country. They don't really care about harming the rule of law, harming the constitution.

Why? Because they are in hot pursuit of unlimited power and they believe they are entitled to direct the direction of the United States rather than elected officials. So many of these FBI officials, they basically were driven by disdain first for the candidate and second for the election of President Trump in 2016. They can't believe their own eyes in terms of what actually happened. And so they've done virtually everything they could to disparage Trump's candidacy and to impair his presidency. And that is why you've had a sequence of charges.

So first you had the crossfire hurricane. Actually, there was an investigation before that. Uh, then you had the special council, uh, then you had this so-called Ukrainian phone call. And as Jordan correctly points out between 30 and 35 people were listening on this call, which allegedly compromised us security. So all of this, uh, represents a fictional narrative designed to eliminate President Trump, uh, from office or alternatively prevent him from engaging in productive work for average working men and women in the country. I think obviously that was the plan. And we see, we saw that unfold over the course of three years, three and a half years, and we were there from the beginning, uh, representing the President.

I want to, uh, kind of wind things up a little bit with, uh, as we go into the weekend here, look, a lot of people are asking a lot of questions about where the, uh, what, what's the status of the election. I think we got to be clear on this. Um, there are two paths that you have in a situation like this. One is the legal path. The other is a political path. The legal path has not borne fruit. Let's be realistic.

No, I think, excuse me, the lawyers tried, they brought suits and they just were not successful, including at the Supreme court. So that leaves the political path. What is the political path? The political path of the state legislatures, where these, the six states are those six states going to come in and undo the electors. And at this point, that doesn't seem even remotely possible.

I'm looking at just realistically. So what we have to do, I think at the ACLJ is we have to look forward. What is it that we're going to deal with, with a new administration, which is we assume is going to happen now.

I'll tell you the one thing I'm worried about, and I'll go to fan on this really quickly. We've got a great lawsuit filed by the United States government against university of Vermont on an abortion issue. I could see that being pulled in 10 seconds. No question about it. I mean, it had been 50 years on the books with no prosecution.

You think that Joe Biden's administration would be a one to buck that trend. I think the Trump administration had been the only one to file it. And I think it was definitely on the table.

The other thing, Jay, and simultaneous without announcement, they also disallowed $200 million for the state of California because they did not offer an insurance plan that was free of abortion. That's on risk too. So look, we got to look forward. We got to be prepared to fight these and on some of them, Jay, not all of them on some of them, we can still win.

All right, folks, you know, I think this is what we have to understand is that we have to be ready to fight. And that, again, whether it's the Swalwell issue, we've got four FOIAs out on that already. Whether it is the issues involving the good law, like Frank was talking about earlier, this great lawsuit by Department of Justice and putting pressure on DOJ not to be able to just walk away from that and dismiss that because of what was done in violation of US law to this nurse. It wasn't about whether or not abortion is legal or not, it's whether or not this nurse could be forced to participate in it. Now there's a civil rights case against the University of New Hampshire, their medical center. And yes, I'm sure the Biden team would love to drop that. But, but you could put pressure and say, that's absurd.

We've already won it in court. And now the university should be punished and not be forcing anyone. I mean, does Joe Biden really believe that nurses should be forced as a Catholic?

He believes that nurses should be forced to perform abortions, elective abortions? So again, I think that's how you fight all of these issues. We're going to talk about that more next week as well on the broadcast.

So stay with us next week as well. Support the work of the ACLJ. We have a matching challenge right now. Double the impact of your donation at ACLJ.org. That's ACLJ.org.

We'll talk to you next week. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20. A $50 gift becomes 100. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org.